A simple litmus test
by JimK
I have a suggestion for a very simple litmus test when trying to figure out if you support something or not. Look at the issue/proposal/whatever and ask one simple question:
Does this thing I am analyzing advance the concepts of liberty and freedom, or does it restrict them?
The answer should dictate your actions.
Comments
Good post, Jim!
Clayton: The PROBLEM with politics is that you take Jim’s statement and compromise it’s message with “what do I need to do to maintain my elected position?”
Some pathetic bastards go so far as to completely forget the former or let their heart guide them in the name of the public good or similar while forgetting the impact on the former.
And some even MORE pathetic bastards don’t believe in the former at all and just want to wield power over others. This is a problem for the right AND the left, IMO.
Oh, and Jim:
Please try to paste more snippets from other blogs/news sources in with your posts and give us less of your own thoughts. It’s what we have grown used to around here…
And DEFINITELY don’t hang around here and address any responses nor defend your views. That is not the way of RTFLC of late.
Maybe when I enter the “real world” I’ll realize that this political shit seriously affects me, if anyone has any advice on how I could become a little more involved, twould be appreciated
hang around here a little while…
Sometimes the answer to that question isn’t easy to come up with…
Jim: The problem is that restrictions on liberty and freedom are, at times and on certain issues, perfectly justified. In those cases, it is the degree to which restrictions should be imposed that is the argument between the so called left and the right. Absolute freedom and liberty is anarchy. Absolute zero freedom and liberty is slavery. People just have different opinions about where to split the difference in between. Furthermore, people have many different opinions as to what represents an “advance” of either of those terms. So… while it is a good litmus test, I suppose, in practice it is basically moot because it cannot account for the simple fact that people can have vastly different world views and opinions on how that view should be implemented.
Jim: The problem is that restrictions on liberty and freedom are, at times and on certain issues, perfectly justified. In those cases, it is the degree to which restrictions should be imposed that is the argument between the so called left and the right. Absolute freedom and liberty is anarchy. Absolute zero freedom and liberty is slavery. People just have different opinions about where to split the difference in between. Furthermore, people have many different opinions as to what represents an “advance” of either of those terms. So… while it is a good litmus test, I suppose, in practice it is basically moot because it cannot account for the simple fact that people can have vastly different world views and opinions on how that view should be implemented.
Wow, Sean, well said. You defined the dilemma
spot on.
Sean,I utterly and completely disagree with this test being moot.
It is a personal test, and maybe you should re-read how I worded it. Each person has to come to a decision on each issue for themselves. Then and only then should they go forward and support or fight against whatever the issue is.
You seem to be thinking about this on a much larger scale than I am. I’m talking directly to and about individuals. This test is not and could never be moot for an individual.
I use it every day. I think others could benefit from applying it more often.
BTW, nice straw man...I never said a word about absolute states of anything. I said “does it advance or restrict the cause.” The goal is never an absolute state, that is impossible. The goal is to retain as much freedom and liberty as possible, and to not give it up for useless reasons or for things that could be obtained in another way that does NOT restrict the concepts.
I’m not being obtuse here, I feel I left enough there that you can argue against what I *said* not the fantasy-by-extension you created from what I said.
In referencing “people” I was specifically speaking about individuals.
On the exact same topic, two people could come to the personal conclusion that their preferred course of action would advance the cause of liberty and freedom, and both would be diametrically opposed to each other. If that’s all well and good in your litmus test, great. I did then look at it on a larger scale as well, you’re correct.
If that’s all well and good in your litmus test, great.
It is. What I am asking is that people actually take a moment and think, instead of just accepting that every position their ideology - whatever it may be - claims is correct.
If that results in two people coming up with opposing course of action, at least some honest consideration was paid and it’s not just another knee-jerk reaction.
“OMG a Demon-crat said it so I have to oppose it with white-hot hatred!” “OMG One of those evul Rethuglicans said it, BURN HIM.”
That’s gotten us precisely nowhere lately.
That’s completely correct.
Except about the Republican part. They are always wrong. ;-) (heh)
Sean, we have established certain rules in the social order that do not create restrictions on freedom and liberty because they simultaneously *enforce* freedom and liberty.
For example, we are all equally prohibited from stealing because it means that one of the people involved is denied their freedom of choice, the right to choose not to engage in an exchange of property. We are all equally prohibited from murder because it denies someone else their life, which is their property. One man’s freedom to swing his arms, as the saying goes, extends precisely to the point at which his arms begin hitting another man in the face.
Anarchy != freedom and liberty. Anarchy is the state of nature, a state of perpetual fear and violence. Freedom and liberty entail a mutual and universal equality before the law, and a society based on property and consent.
On the exact same topic, two people could come to the personal conclusion that their preferred course of action would advance the cause of liberty and freedom, and both would be diametrically opposed to each other.
They’re free to do so.
Except about the Republican part. They are always wrong. ;-) (heh)
COCKPUNCH! ;)
Sadly, though, JimK, I think anyone that’s likely to make instant decisions about a topic isn’t about to take your litmus test to heart.
This type of thinking is hard-wired into a person and not likely to change, in my opinion. I get what you’re saying, I just think the people that need to “get it” aren’t going to care.
6or7: Yeah, but if people who are wired this way say it often rnough...and it sinks in to even one person, then they tell one, and they tell one…
OMG did I just advocate some crazy libertarian version of paying it forward?
So if we ever get out of this mess we’re in, I can honestly say I witnessed it start here…
JimK: If you want your suggestion adopted widely, I suggest rewording it slightly.
Does this thing I am analyzing advance or restrict the concepts of liberty and freedom as I understand them?
Or something similar. I agree completely with you, and I use it myself - it’s the perfect antidode to the “there oughta be a law...” reaction that it’s so easy to leap to when someone pisses you off.
If you want to put that to different audiences, though, it’s going to sound like a strawman in the process of construction.
Next entry: History As Written By The Losers
Previous entry: Why people are taking to the streets
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4335
Total Logged in members: 2
Total guests: 67
Total anonymous users: 0
Balthazar,
HARLEY,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The al Qaeda lawyers controversy
(16 total, Last @ 12:54)
Thrill: And I’m still curious what the Stalin smear is all about. He's calling a "useful idiot." Honestly, I think it's unfair to call you a useful idiot. The detainees should have lawyers--military lawyers who represent them in Combat Status Review Tribunals and military trials. At issue is the fact that…
Government healthcare takeover economics 101.
(13 total, Last @ 12:01)
fangbeer: Medicare has by the lowest refusal rate for reimbursement That's just a flat out lie according to the AMA
Virtual Hell
(3 total, Last @ 11:29)
Hal_10000: I am sure there are people out there passing judgment on you Hal for being so callous to get angry at them, and not understanding that computers are an addiction and these poor people just could not resist it. It’s nobody’s fault! Exactly. Nothing is ever our fault.
The al Qaeda lawyers controversy
(16 total, Last @ 11:28)
Hal_10000: Let me say it again: he policy of treating terrorists like common criminals and having to deal with them after the fact is what made the 9-11 attacks possible. Again, do you have anything to back this claim up, other than bold lettering? This claim that you keep making --…
The al Qaeda lawyers controversy
(16 total, Last @ 11:18)
AlexinCT: Well, that’s the catch-22, isn’t it? No, it is not. You guys denounce everything Obama does so that you can claim “I told you so” when an attack happens. Weak even from you Hal. Who the F is the supposed “You guys” you are talking about and lumping me in?…
Last 30 Comments
As much of an influence Lee had on me… politics is just not one of the things that struck me as interesting.
I guess It’s because of my age, but damn I just don’t grasp the concepts of politics…
Maybe when I enter the “real world” I’ll realize that this political shit seriously affects me, if anyone has any advice on how I could become a little more involved, twould be appreciated